48÷2(9+3) = ???

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • reelizmpro
    replied
    The answer is 2 and here is why...

    This next example displays an issue that almost never arises but, when it does, there seems to be no end to the arguing.
    Simplify 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1.

    16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(4 – 2)] + 1
    = 16 ÷ 2[8 – 3(2)] + 1
    = 16 ÷ 2[8 – 6] + 1
    = 16 ÷ 2[2] + 1 (**)
    = 16 ÷ 4 + 1
    = 4 + 1
    = 5

    The confusing part in the above calculation is how "16 divided by 2[2] + 1" (in the line marked with the double-star) becomes "16 divided by 4 + 1", instead of "8 times by 2 + 1". That's because, even though multiplication and division are at the same level (so the left-to-right rule should apply), parentheses outrank division, so the first 2 goes with the [2], rather than with the "16 divided by". That is, multiplication that is indicated by placement against parentheses (or brackets, etc) is "stronger" than "regular" multiplication.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conki
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevie30
    Most of you don't understand what I don't know.
    So, what does this have to do with e30s?
    Nothing, hence the placement in the OT subforum.

    Leave a comment:


  • j0oftheworld
    replied
    Originally posted by NigelStu
    LOL. Those damn elephants. I knew this equation wasn't solvable...

    er wait. I think that elephant is telling the 48/2 to GTFO, so the answer is 12.


    /thread

    Yeah, but the elephant is next to the "(" so the answer is 12 elephants!

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevie30
    replied
    Most of you don't understand what I don't know.
    So, what does this have to do with e30s?

    Leave a comment:


  • NigelStu
    replied
    LOL. Those damn elephants. I knew this equation wasn't solvable...

    er wait. I think that elephant is telling the 48/2 to GTFO, so the answer is 12.


    /thread

    Leave a comment:


  • Fusion
    replied
    You're all wrong.
    Zoom in, there's a fucking elephant in the way.

    Leave a comment:


  • fryerfighter94
    replied


    amidoinitrite

    Leave a comment:


  • 87e30
    replied
    this is so stupid.

    Leave a comment:


  • jrobie79
    replied
    my bad, wasnt really looking at links people provided, just responses

    Leave a comment:


  • Farbin Kaiber
    replied
    Originally posted by farbin kaiber
    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...89%2b3%29+%3d+


    looks like this is the new airplane on a treadmill.
    Originally posted by jrobie79
    wolfram alpha knows all:

    repost

    Leave a comment:


  • jrobie79
    replied
    ^swing and a miss

    Leave a comment:


  • NigelStu
    replied
    48÷2(9+3) = ???

    Improper equation, and not solvable. Hell, even Google doesn't know the meaning of "???"



    Go ahead, search for "???" - Here's what you get.
    Your search - ??? - did not match any documents. Reset search tools

    Suggestions:

    * Try different keywords.

    Even 'related searches' doesn't come up with anything. Not even anything in google images for xxx sake!!!!


    And whens the last time you saw a porn star doing math anyway??? yeah, that's right - when she tried to add 1 into 0 and after a good 20 times or so, came up with the answer "OMG"


    The only thing I can really determine out of this equation with all the multiples of 12, is that I really should have bought a 12 pack of beer instead of this 6-pack. Damnit.

    Leave a comment:


  • jrobie79
    replied
    wolfram alpha knows all:

    Leave a comment:


  • tjts1
    replied
    That interpretation taken out of context ignores the order of operations in a poorly written math problem. The whole thing is designed to get people to argue about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ethirtydavid
    replied
    shit's all over every forum.. don't get upset at opposing answers

    Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for.


    Leave a comment:

Working...